Quoting Aesma (Reply 4): Most oil rich countries with nothing else going on (industry, services etc.) have a large part of their population in poverty, at least in Venezuela they get educated and have health care.

Venezuela has a HUGE reserve of heavy oil in the Orinoco Basin. Would require a big investment to recover, then to upgrade to a quality that most refineries could handle.

I'm wondering if the Canadian figures take into account the oil sands...probably, as our 'regular' reserves have been exploited for around 65 years now. But there may be shale oil as well, likely not accounted for - same as USA.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6):Venezuela has a HUGE reserve of heavy oil in the Orinoco Basin. Would require a big investment to recover, then to upgrade to a quality that most refineries could handle.

Given that Venezuela appropriated all the US oil company's assets in the country, I don't see them getting much help to develop it.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 7):Given that Venezuela appropriated all the US oil company's assets in the country, I don't see them getting much help to develop it.

Valid point but that happened with traditional oil companies whose bottom line is their own bottom line. If the Chinese, or other, state oil companie(s) are interested in contracted development rather than extraction of profit as part of a broader strategic plan, that fear of nationalization may not hold.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6):I'm wondering if the Canadian figures take into account the oil sands...probably, as our 'regular' reserves have been exploited for around 65 years now. But there may be shale oil as well, likely not accounted for - same as USA.

Venezuela also has oil sands, of a size comparable to the Athabascan fields.

No one even knew how to develop oil sands only a few years ago. Venezuelan conventional oil, much of which is medium/heavy/extra heavy might consist of 40-60+ billion barrels. The rest is oil sands and requires extreme processing. Even extra heavy oil does not flow through pipelines without being heated. It is like sludge, sand, and grit.

This is why KSA can achieve flow rates in excess of 10 Mb/d while Venezuela maxes out at ~2.75-3 Mb/d.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 4):Most oil rich countries with nothing else going on (industry, services etc.) have a large part of their population in poverty, at least in Venezuela they get educated and have health care.

I see that, but then we're not talking about a country with plenty of oil, we're talking about the one with the MOST.

It's a wise decision not to digg immediately for all the existing sources.It also stabilizes the prices.

Because even if you don't dig immediately for all of it, the fact is that the country is extremely oil-rich, and yet is a complete and utter mess. The two things might not be exactly linked, but it's reasonable to surmise that the country with the largest oil reserves in the world probably shouldn't ever run out of toilet roll, for example.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 14):The two things might not be exactly linked, but it's reasonable to surmise that the country with the largest oil reserves in the world probably shouldn't ever run out of toilet roll, for example.

I'm not so sure. I lived in Libya in the 80s and you couldn't buy toilet roll. They simply ran out. People started stealing it from hotels; you issued your guests with 3 sheets only if they needed to use your facilities. It even came down to 1/4 dinar notes. It was pretty bad for a while I can tell you.

To no one will we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice - Magna Carta, 1215

Quoting offloaded (Reply 15):I'm not so sure. I lived in Libya in the 80s and you couldn't buy toilet roll. They simply ran out. People started stealing it from hotels; you issued your guests with 3 sheets only if they needed to use your facilities. It even came down to 1/4 dinar notes. It was pretty bad for a while I can tell you.

I'm not suggesting it's unique, but it definitely shouldn't happen - I'm sure you'd agree with that, having experienced it yourself. There are many examples of oil-rich countries who fail to use their considerable wealth properly for the benefit of the people. Nigeria springs to mind as another prime example.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6):I'm wondering if the Canadian figures take into account the oil sands...probably, as our 'regular' reserves have been exploited for around 65 years now. But there may be shale oil as well, likely not accounted for - same as USA.

The problem with oil sands and shale vs traditional crude is the return per ton after refining, the Orinoco reserves are highly variable in that measure to date, but no large scale exploitation has yet taken place to get a good baseline. The Athabaskan tar sands on the other hand are a known value.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Quoting A380900 (Reply 17):Well, despite what our media are telling us, they were doing quite well before the war. High litteracy rate. Best human development index in Africa. Ranking 48 in the world. Better than Russia...

Of course, it is hard to believe after the Western media machine has done its demonizing work of the last two years but you can look it up...

Well that's precisely why the war happened (and the revolution in Tunisia), educated people don't want to live in a dictatorship.

New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams

Quoting Aesma (Reply 19):Well that's precisely why the war happened (and the revolution in Tunisia), educated people don't want to live in a dictatorship.

That can explain why there were some protests after the Tunisian upheaval. However these protests were not powerful enough to really bring Gaddafi down (probably because many more Libyans than we were led to believe were quite content with the state of affairs - as people usually are in other petromonarchies).

And then Western powers decided to get rid of Gaddafi without any relations to the level of education or well-being there. And you can be sure it's going to go down.

I am a little bit unsettled that people fall so easily for the "democracy vs dictature" mumbo jumbo that Western powers tout every time they intervene somewhere. Do Western powers care about democracy in Saudi Arabia? In Bahrein? Or before the Arab Spring in Egypt, Tunisia or Syria? Not at all...

Libya has been plunged into civil war because it served Western powers interest and that Gaddafi was a little too tough in his negotiations to sell his ressources to the West. I think you should take a step back from everything that we hear everytime war is on the menu. It is 90% balloney.

With respect, I lived there for 8 years and still have quite a few Libyan friends, so I have some clue when it comes to Libya. Without question, ALL of them feel Libya is better without Gaddafi, and the country is absolutely not about to break down into civil war. Obviously after 40 years of the Colonel there are bound to be serious issues.

To no one will we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice - Magna Carta, 1215

Quoting A380900 (Reply 20):That can explain why there were some protests after the Tunisian upheaval. However these protests were not powerful enough to really bring Gaddafi down (probably because many more Libyans than we were led to believe were quite content with the state of affairs - as people usually are in other petromonarchies).

And then Western powers decided to get rid of Gaddafi without any relations to the level of education or well-being there. And you can be sure it's going to go down.

I am a little bit unsettled that people fall so easily for the "democracy vs dictature" mumbo jumbo that Western powers tout every time they intervene somewhere. Do Western powers care about democracy in Saudi Arabia? In Bahrein? Or before the Arab Spring in Egypt, Tunisia or Syria? Not at all...

Libya has been plunged into civil war because it served Western powers interest and that Gaddafi was a little too tough in his negotiations to sell his ressources to the West. I think you should take a step back from everything that we hear everytime war is on the menu. It is 90% balloney.

Quoting offloaded (Reply 21):With respect, I lived there for 8 years and still have quite a few Libyan friends, so I have some clue when it comes to Libya. Without question, ALL of them feel Libya is better without Gaddafi, and the country is absolutely not about to break down into civil war. Obviously after 40 years of the Colonel there are bound to be serious issues.

I've never lived there nor do I have friends there. I respect that you do. I'm just quoting the United Nations' HDI (Human Development Index). I sure hope it will move up from 48 but I have my doubts if Iraq is any sign. The mere idea that after Iraq, Western powers can think that their interventions will do more good than harm and that plenty of government worshipping citizens still believe them "no questions asked" is mind boggling to me.

The hypocrisy of Western governments knows no bound as the Bahrein and Saudi Arabia examples shows when it comes to democracy. One thing is sure, like in Iraq, ressources will be flowing towards our shores. But this idea that we're doing it "for the good of the people there" is preposterous. It is quite certain Libyan people will get less from their ressources than they used to. Gaddafi was asking too much of a cut on "OUR NATURAL RESSOUCES". And I'm not even getting into the personal issues between Sarkozy and Gaddafi that really could in an instant make every cheerleader like a dimwits (Sarkozy is very seriously suspected of having received Libyan funding for his 2007 election and many suspect in France it has played a huge role in his objective of taking Gaddafi down after things went sour). What do war cheeleaders have to say about this one? They are a sorry bunch being manipulated with "Human Rights" rhetoric while some politicians get bigger swimming pools. Very sad.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 22):Of course he did declare war on his own people. But whatever...

God how I wish I could trust my government and my media to always do/say the right thing like you do. I'm sure you live a happy life. What exactly does "declare war on his own people" even mean? You're just repeating some pro-war talking point without even being aware of it. Wake up.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 24):If you've ever interacted with me you'll notice i'm one of the most anti-government people on here.

Good for you. But then I would suggest you'd be a little more suspicious of the government's motives whenever it tells you it wants to go to war. "War is the health of the state" as they say. If you dislike big government, first target its war policies because it is always how it grows by orders of magnitude. Look a Homeland Security for instance.
Saddam Hussein is the new "Hitler of the day", then Gaddafi, then Assad. Each time we go through the exact same motions and the media demonize yesterday's friends. Sarkozy even hosted Gaddafi and Assad in Paris early in his mandate!

Very often, if you dig a little, you'll see that the "evidence" and the "massacres" and all the rhetoric is based on very flimsy evidence and I'm being generous here. WMDs for Hussein, avoiding massacres in Benghazi for Gaddafi (I mean by that metric you can start a war anytime anywhere in the world - which is pretty much what is happening). And now this "Assad used chemical weapons in Syria". Now why would Assad do such a thing very sporadically as it does not give him any strategic advantage? Just to make Cameron and Hollande happy by handing them a casus belli on a silver platter? Oh but our media won't balk at that, because it is assumed that Assad, Gaddafi or Hussein are stupid and/or just plain "mean". Give me a break. This is all a cartoon.

I apologize for the tone but l think overall people should be A LOT more inquisitive and skeptical when it comes to war and peace.

Quoting A380900 (Reply 26):Good for you. But then I would suggest you'd be a little more suspicious of the government's motives whenever it tells you it wants to go to war. "War is the health of the state" as they say. If you dislike big government, first target its war policies because it is always how it grows by orders of magnitude. Look a Homeland Security for instance.

You're tilting at windmills. I was against intervention in Libya, as i am with all tax-funded wars that don't concern the defence of the country i live in.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 4):Most oil rich countries with nothing else going on (industry, services etc.) have a large part of their population in poverty, at least in Venezuela they get educated and have health care.

Which Venezuela are you talking about? Please document a little bit more and bring some substantial proofs to your statement. The programs in education and health founded by the government of Mr. Chavez have been a disaster. They have been put in the spot for being inefficient and a smart way of gaining popularity for the re-election...but that's it. Most of the people know that the education provided by the social missions is a joke. Instead of investing in the public education sector they decided to create a mission that will get you a diploma in a few months but with the lack of the mere sense of what it should be taught. On the health sector happens the same thing. Public hospitals and infrastructure is falling in pieces. Doctors in the public sector are not being paid. The materials for the practice are inexistent. Instead of injecting money to what was already in bad shape, they decided to bring foreign doctors to do individual practice in the neighborhoods. I think that if you spend 5 years of your life studying medicine in Venezuela to find out that they rather get Cubans doctor you probably won't think the way you think right now.

Venezuelan government know they are floating in oil and they know that until they get that they will be able to hold all this ridiculous corrupt missions that are just a makeup of the amount of dollars they are stealing in the background for their personal accounts. Venezuela is not only the country with the most reserves but also the country with the cheapest gas prices ($ 0.10 per gallon). Its cheaper to fill the tank of your car than to buy a bottle of coke. This is unacceptable in the current world as most of the countries know that gas prices should be equivalent to the current economy. Even Saudi Arabia and other oil countries have decent gas prices but not a joke as the ones in Venezuela. The reason the government don't raise such price is that they know the day they do that all the popularity they get from the fake missions will go straight to the sink and a riot will take them out.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 25):What are the very talented people of Venezuela and Saudi Arabia contributing to the world???

Pretty much nothing?

What a sad and/or arrogant statement to make from someone so young as to not have experienced the world.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 25):Energy is primarily good news for the people who buy it. It gives them security and the ability to plan.

A rather naive statement. You're too young to remember the 1973 oil shock when OPEC basically brought the USA to it's knees, leading to the 1973-74 stock market crash. Turn off the taps or even turn them down and watch the USA get into serious trouble if gas prices went north of $5 a gallon. Canada today is just shy of that mark while the EU is already upwards of $8 per gallon. You can pretend the days of cheap energy will go on forever, but reality says you're in for a very rude shock, likely within your lifetime.

I guess I'd comment that the Arabic-Hindu numeral system has already contributed greatly to how the whole world works. I'd also say that has and still does contribute a lot. Not to rest on long-ago laurels, they also still contribute some fabulous foodstuffs.

BTW, there was a topic not long ago on this subject; there is a great difference in classifications between "independent companies" located in specific countires and "state-owned/runned entities" like OPEC that can juggle their figures any which way they choose. IIRC, Venezuela is an OPEC member, no? regards...jack

Quoting oldeuropean (Reply 10):It's a wise decision not to digg immediately for all the existing sources.It also stabilizes the prices.

It's not so much sparing your supply as it is discovering more and more as you go. The Orinoco oil basin was found to have plenty of oil only a few years ago. And as it has been said: considering that Saudi oil is lighter than Venezuelan oil, I wouldn't be surprised that, in addition to having the top spot on proven oil reserves for years to come, when oil reaches a critical point where many other exporters have completely ceased their exports, Venezuela will still be pumping oil. That being said, it would be interesting to see if countries will have moved towards renewable, clean, efficient energy.

Quoting photopilot (Reply 29):Turn off the taps or even turn them down and watch the USA get into serious trouble if gas prices went north of $5 a gallon. Canada today is just shy of that mark while the EU is already upwards of $8 per gallon.

Gas in Vancouver area right now is $1.43/liter which is more than $5/USgallon -- but gasoline in Canada (and most other places) is taxed at a pretty high rate. That accounts for most of the difference with the US -- not all of of it, but most of it. Gas prices in North America will be high enough when no one can afford to run an SUV any more.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 11):I love how people talk about topics they know nothing about and form conclusions based on that lack of knowledge to fit their preconcieved notions.

I recommend you do a little research before blasting somebody for commenting on what is common knowledge in the oil industry. It is a proven fact that Venezualen oil production has fallen 25% since 1997 even while prices rose. Just about the time Cavez took over and is indeed a direct result of negligence and mis-management. The people running PDVSA are inept and in charge only because they were Chavez supporters. Bad news for a country which relies on oil for 50% of all revenue.

Thank you, but yes I know Venezuelan oil production has fallen. Not due to the reasons you have given I am afraid. That is your own conclusion, and is up for debate. There are actually a multitude of technical...not political...reasons why their production has fallen off. Exhaustion/decline of old conventional reservoirs being one.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 18):The problem with oil sands and shale vs traditional crude is the return per ton after refining, the Orinoco reserves are highly variable in that measure to date, but no large scale exploitation has yet taken place to get a good baseline. The Athabaskan tar sands on the other hand are a known value.

Currently in Alberta it's about 1/3 BOE to get a barrel of oil, energy-wise. If the operators chose to switch to newer technology, this energy input cost would fall by half, as would CO2 production. Admittedly this would cost billions.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 34): It is a proven fact that Venezualen oil production has fallen 25% since 1997 even while prices rose. Just about the time Cavez took over and is indeed a direct result of negligence and mis-management.

Chavez came to power 1998. I was there during the election campaign. Quite the colourful time !

Quoting photopilot (Reply 29):What a sad and/or arrogant statement to make from someone so young as to not have experienced the world.

You'll have to try to excuse my poor taste and possible mental insanity. Youth or any lack of travel are not excuses I can utilize

Maybe the original point is not so terribly controversial; so it is a shame I made it so badly. Oil revenue -- and the oil business -- can be, and often is, a tragedy for those who have it. Rule of law is much more important than having oil.

Unfortunately, oil tempts government ministers to destroy rule of law to keep all the money. It also gives them the financial means to stay in power forever, in spite of their people's needs.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 37):Unfortunately, oil tempts government ministers to destroy rule of law to keep all the money. It also gives them the financial means to stay in power forever, in spite of their people's needs.

I see.

This explains all our political issues in Canada. I did not realise we were living in a dictatorship. Things are rarely as straightforward as you might think.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 35):Thank you, but yes I know Venezuelan oil production has fallen. Not due to the reasons you have given I am afraid. That is your own conclusion, and is up for debate. There are actually a multitude of technical...not political...reasons why their production has fallen off. Exhaustion/decline of old conventional reservoirs being one.

Of course there are technical reasons why production has fallen, a primary one being their inability to develop Orinoco. And the reason why they have this slight technical problem? Because they threw out all their foreign partners with the knowledge after firing 19,000 PDVSA workers and replacing them with Chavez supporters. Both of those reasons were politically motivated. Then there is the string of recent accidents blamed on lack of re-investment in infrastructure. And yes, that does fall under the definition of mismanagement. There is plenty more to talk about, I am simply out of time but claiming Venezuela's oil industry has not suffered at the hands of the Chavez is nothing but revisionism.

I am (OK, I admit it, am not) surprised at the amount of animosity that a simple question of who has the largest proven supplies of oil can generate.

To a degree I am with Pelligrine here, in that oil reserves and economical fields are different things. There may be billions of barrels per day potential but if the resource is difficult to access, costly to refine and incompetative in the market, I think that it is best to everyone leave it in the ground. This argument is not restricted to oil but is applied to every other resource. In Australia the example of reworking gold tailings is an example of how new technologies and new methods can convert an uneconomical process into a financially viable on can occur. No one is going to spend more to recover a resource than the resource is worth, if they are rational or unless political considerations come into play.

This might be one reason why some countries that have plentiful resources may yet have tremendous poverty or lack of basic requirements. Anecdotal evidence and even "official reports" might miss things if taken in isolation. Personally, I have never run out of toilet paper, even in countries where more hygenic methods are available, but I do recall that while working in England a few years ago a sugar shortage and a bacon shortage ocurred, despite North Sea oil being available. No doubt at the time the UK was on par with Venezuaela.

In a general sense, if a person believes in private property and the free market as being the best guarantor of being an efficient then they have to accept that private interest outweighs public benefit. In some instances it may be completely opposed to it. They may be opposed to such an idea but it is true that what benefits me may not benefit anyone else. The real world does not comfortably match idealist philosophies.

There are those who favour a view that the government should intervention to ensure an equitable outcome. This is
anathema to free marketeers. It is this sort of talk that in the past has justified coups. Countries that were basically Nationalist and expressed the view that their resources should benefit their people were denounced as "Communist", and were subjected to a range of responses, ranging from investment strikes, desabilisations, funding of armed opposition to out right coups overthrowing elected governments. All in the name of freedom, of course.

So historically we can see that there is litlle corelation between the "wealth" of a country and the well-being of its citizens.

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 41):This might be one reason why some countries that have plentiful resources may yet have tremendous poverty or lack of basic requirements. Anecdotal evidence and even "official reports" might miss things if taken in isolation. Personally, I have never run out of toilet paper, even in countries where more hygenic methods are available, but I do recall that while working in England a few years ago a sugar shortage and a bacon shortage ocurred, despite North Sea oil being available. No doubt at the time the UK was on par with Venezuaela.

Speaking about mismanagement and North Sea oil reserves, those two go hand in hand in a different sort of way. The UK rushed in the 80s to be an oil exporter and earn $ for that, now they are an oil importer $$$$. Frittered away, penny wise and pound foolish.